list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it returns a specific set of fields and lists only active subscriptions by default. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect from the response without an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and return shape, the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotation details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations. The description covers the tool's core purpose, return fields, and when to use it, making it fully self-sufficient even without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter include_inactive, with a clear description in the schema itself. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but since the schema already documents it well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'the caller's active subscriptions,' specifying the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool and implicitly contrasts with subscribe/unsubscribe for other actions. The mention of 'active subscriptions' also clarifies that include_inactive can widen the scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set mixes several overlapping families—ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded, six Polymarket tools, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the memory tools—so an agent can easily misselect. Although many descriptions are rich, the tool boundaries are not distinct enough, and two tools are explicitly near-identical at present.
Names are all lowercase snake_case with some logical prefixes (page_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but conventions mix imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), bare nouns/adjectives (random, featured, onthisday), and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, page_html). The pattern is readable but not consistent enough to predict tool names reliably.
42 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range, especially given that the server is labeled 'Wikimedia Rest' but most tools target Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, npm scanning, memory, and AI marketing. Many tools could be consolidated or split into separate servers.
For reading Wikipedia content the page_* tools are fairly complete, and the Pipeworx side covers ask/research/resolve/validate workflows. However, major gaps exist for a coherent user: no Wikipedia search/resolve-title tool, no article diff or edit workflow, and the 'Wikimedia Rest' server lacks any write or query surface matching its name; the overall domain is so diffuse that completeness is hard to assess.